Newsreading Easy - Wogan

Have you watched my YouTube video that Chris linked to earlier? It clearly shows Anna heavily involved in planning for the One O'Clock News and it follows Huw round all day preparing for the Six. And if you think it's all an act for the video, it's not - I've seen it happening in real life.

Of course there's consistency between the different news programmes. However, there is a clear development in how each story is treated throughout the day. Each news bulletin has its own editorial team (including the presenter) which decides on how each story is going to be treated in their programme. The lunchtime news is usually more dependent upon live two-ways with reporters, whereas the evening and particularly late evening bulletins rely more on packages and in-depth analysis by correspondents/reporters. I'm not saying the presenter has complete control over what is covered and how it is covered. That's what the editor is there for. However, they do not just turn up and read, which is what you are implying. Any presenter worth his or her salt is heavily involved in the planning and preparation for their programme. Are you telling me that you would feel comfortable just turning up and presenting a live news bulletin without any idea of what is being covered and how? I never saw him live but I've been told that John Suchet knew the news of the day so well that he used to regularly adlib his links live on air. Now, that's skill.

I think the point which was trying to be made (well the way I took it anyway) is that interviews other than with reporters are rare on national bulletins. It's slightly more common to see a medical expert interviewed on the 1 but other than that the six/ten only goes to it's own reporters

Newsreaders make it seem very easy but realistically when I ever read out in public I splutter and trip over my words, forget where the sentence ends and often put emphasis on wrong parts of the sentence - and I consider myself a good public speaker.

Yet again, in a studio with a autocue I have no idea how easy I would find it. Probably not as easy as Wogan thinks it is.

Er- not quite. That would be loads of work. A "writer" writes the links. A presenter would usually just tweak them.

Surely all Terry Wogan does is play records.

I think that Wogan is partially right but it does open up a far larger debate on television news. The anchors of the network bulletins in the UK have far less input and control versus their colleagues in the US, where typically the anchor is also the managing editor of the broadcast. By that, they share the responsibility with the Executive Producer of the broadcast to shape a bulletin that is - in some ways - a reflection of themselves (after all, it is their name on the masthead, as in NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams).

There has been a debate that has snowballed in recent years over veteran journalists being sidelined for 'autocuties' etc. (God knows it's been a feature on here for long enough!) and this is where Wogan's criticism is valid. There are, however, anchors in the UK who do travel in the field and file reports (Huw Edwards' work in Afghanistan and Iraq is a case in point). What isn't beneficial to the broadcast (nor the industry) is to have an anchor (or three) pop up somewhere to bring 24-hour live coverage (as in the case of a natural disaster). Anchoring on location doesn't really serve a purpose and the anchor doesn't always convey any new information to the viewer. To those of you on here who will argue that it frees up resources and allows correspondents to investigate and film reports, I'm sorry but I don't agree. An anchor on location at a natural disaster (such as the Asian Tsunami) cannot achieve a more insightful broadcast just because they are on location. If, as in the case of the Asian Tsunami, 24-hour coverage is required, then there are sufficient journalists and correspondents in the region (with a far greater knowledge of the area) to cover the story amongst themselves. I seem to recall that a few years ago, the BBC promoted the news division with a series of trailers in which they spoke to correspondents (I think it was call Insights and it had an accompanying website). In that, Fergal Keane said that the key to being a journalist/correspondent was to live there, to immerse yourself in the culture, to experience life in a country on a daily basis. That way, you see a news story developing three years before it occurs. An anchor flying out to a location just because a rival broadcaster has done it cannot achieve this.

As Don Hewitt used to tell people, the key to being a good journalist is something a child says everynight - 'Tell me a story'. An anchor summarises what has happened. A correspondent tells me the story.

I vote this to be TV Forum's best post of 2009. Well said, Schwing. I completely agree with your arguments. On location presenting is thoroughly pointless, and your post has demonstrated this. I always feel it happens because broadcasters just want to show off what they can do. Ultimately, nothing is gained by having a presenter on location and in many ways, the programme is worse off because, as you imply, they are not benefiting from a correspondent's experience, as they are usually sidelined in favour of the big name presenter.

I reckon that someone should get Wogan to do a newsreading shift on a TV news programme or channel. Not only would Terry Wogan on Sky News be a fantastic bit of television but I think he'd be in for a shock!

Wogan's comments have only scratched the surface of the debate concerning journalism as a whole. As the announcement by ABC News this week has shown, there is no need to replace a veteran anchor with one who is barely out of nursery. With Charlie Gibson announcing that he wished to retire ABC News appointed Diane Sawyer in his place. Whereas in the UK the likes of Anna Ford and Moira Stuart were sidelined in favour of younger individuals (some of whom - I must point out - should not be accused of being 'autocuties', etc. because they are very good at what they do), here in the US age and experience adds stature and credibility. A former CBS News correspondent, Bernie Goldberg, once commented that (and I paraphrase here) it's more reassuring to have the news (be it good or bad) delivered by some old guy who has been around the block, knows what happened and has seen it before.

This opinion may appear hypocritical, given that I work for CBS News and - in 2006 - it tapped Katie Couric to be the anchor and managing editor of the CBS Evening News, but I hope it isn't. Although Couric is regarded by many as the apotheosis of 'autocuties' and the worrying trend of mixing news and entertainment, she is, in fact, a veteran. Her father was an editor for the Atlanta-Journal Constituion before he moved on to the AP; she was a Pentagon Correspondent for NBC News; during her time at NBC Today she demonstrated her journalistic credentials with her interviews, notably President George HW Bush regarding Iran-Contra; and whilst at CBS her profile of Sarah Palin offered new insights. Moreover, she's 52 - Fiona Bruce began anchoring the Six O'Clock News (the equivalent of NBC Nightly or CBS Evening News) when she was 35.

There is something else that should be considered, of course. It's hypocritical to argue that the 'dumbing-down' of broadcast news began in the US. British television is equally culpable. When ITV launched in 1955, Christopher Chataway was the first individual to anchor a bulletin. He later moved to BBC News. Richard Baker was merely an announcer but was later anchor of BBC Nine O'Clock News; Robert Dougall was an accountant before becoming a 'face' at BBC News, whilst Michael Aspel was - amongst other things, a gardener, a shop assistant and a radio actor before making a similar move. It should also be noted that the latter three also appeared on entertainment programming - such as Miss World or Morecambe and Wise. That said, it should also be remembered that Natasha Kaplinsky appearing on Strictly Come Dancing was not new - Angela Rippon gave a memorable performance on Morecambe and Wise and Moira Stuart was a character on The Adventure Show.

As I said in an earlier post, anchors should keep to what they do best. The story that is told in the 3 minute package that follows is more important.

That may be the point which was being made, but I don't buy it.

They frequently interview MPs etc, particularly on Breakfast. Perhaps not so much on the ten, but at that time of day it's more Newsnight's domain.

I always used to have a soft spot for Terry. That was until I read one of his books a couple of years ago. Far from the warm, witty, cosy image he's cultivated over the years, he came across in the book as a cantankerous, rambling, opinionated old git. The book was full of half-baked opinions on subjects of which he demonstrated little real knowledge or understanding.

The fact he states that he knows how easy newsreading is because he's done it himself is typical of this, especially when you consider he last read the news in the early 1960s - something which hardly gives him an insight into news presentation in the 21st Century.

I do wish he'd shut up about stuff which doesn't concern him.

Well gee, if we applied that to this place, there wouldn't be any posts.